Wrath of God vs. Love of God (5 of 5 case studies) Jacob Loved, Esau Hated

The Lord, the God of all kindness, personally hated Isaac’s son Esau, though He loved his brother Jacob. Why? What was so vile about this descendant of Abraham as to earn the Lord’s abhorrence? Did the Lord hate Esau in a sovereign random selection, or was there rationale behind His emotion? Over all, Esau did not have very wicked actions, and he actually seemed to honor the Lord later in his life. It seems strange that the Lord would detest a man simply on the basis of a momentary choice that was made under extenuating circumstances. How could the God, who is love, and who sent His only Son to die because of the love He holds for the most contemptible of sinners, hate a man for such a menial crime?

This is the word that the Lord spoke to Rebekah while she was pregnant with her twin sons, saying, “Two nations are in your womb… And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:23). God sovereignly chose Jacob to be a leader over Esau, though He saw that Esau would be naturally stronger than Jacob. This was a very intentional choice on God’s part, for His desire has always been to manifest His strength by dwelling in a weak people. The Lord, in His wisdom and kindness, gave the plan of redemption for both of these men, knowing the best way to navigate the dynamics of their hearts into His affections. The favor given to Jacob above Esau was not concerning salvation or love but secular authority.

However, Esau did not have confidence in the Lord’s seemingly foolish decision, and believed his own strength to be adequate to attain all he needed. He did not understand that the Lord was not mostly concerned with who obtained the position of leadership, but rather was jealous for their adoration. Although Rebekah most likely never told him the word she received, Esau understood that it was the Lord’s choice to give Jacob the inheritance. Because of this, he viewed the Lord as a deceiver who secretly had ill intent toward him. In contrast, Jacob believed in the Lord’s kind intention, even to the point of striving with Him in order to receive the promise he did not deserve. Esau’s view of God is exposed in his statement, “Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me these two times? He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.”

The Lord’s statement over Jacob was quite different than Esau’s take of him, and this is because Jacob’s understanding of the Lord drastically differed from Esau’s view of Him. Esau felt that Jacob was one who stole what was rightfully his (Gen. 27:36), but the Lord knew that he was one who eagerly sought out what the Lord had appointed for him (Gen. 32:27-28; Rom. 9:11-12). Jacob had become a friend of God (Is. 41:8) because he believed Him to work out His promise, even in his weakness and fear. He was not anxious to retain and guard the land that had been given to him in the blessing of Isaac, even when it seemed likely that Esau would take it by force in Jacob’s long absence. When he did return to Canaan, he took the lower posture instead of trying to assert himself before Esau and reign over him with a heavy hand.

We see the kind of relationship Esau tried to establish with the Lord through his relationship with his father. Isaac favored Esau because of his ability to provide for himself through the hunt, and Esau thought the Lord was like his father Isaac, valuing the outward achievements above the inward attitude of the heart. He was consumed by the longing to establish himself as Nimrod had in earlier times, a mighty hunter before the Lord. When this failed to attract the Lord’s delight, Esau determined that He was a weak and foolish God, and continued to pursue increase through his own means.

He did not believe in the Lord’s ability to perfect him or give him a good portion, and tried to affect his own righteousness and might. He did not have a vision of eternity, and did not believe that the Lord was a rewarder of those who seek Him. However, he also wanted to appear righteous before men and sought their favor ardently. Therefore, when the Lord handed “his inheritance” to Jacob through the blessing of Isaac, he could not bear the loss, although he had freely discarded it when the temporal value was tested. He had no vision for eternity, so when his temporal blessing was actually removed, he could see no hope. Later in life, Esau was completely satisfied once he had achieved his own success. The outward rage he had toward Jacob (and God) subsided because he had acquired the worldly profit he felt was wrongfully snatched away from him.

The Lord hated Esau because he wanted God to hate him. He set himself as an adversary against the Lord and His ways, while Jacob clung to God even when He told him to let go. Although the Lord gave Esau a way of redemption through voluntary servitude to Jacob, He eventually apportioned to him the inheritance he had eagerly sought apart from God, and the Lord would not take it away from him (Duet. 2). Esau could never come to the place of trust in the Lord’s leadership or believe His good will. He held on to his bitterness toward the Lord, never submitting to Jacob because he did not believe His choice would result favorably. The Lord gave him the dignity of free choice, and thus, Esau chose to remain obstinate and receive a passing reward.

Wrath of God vs. Love of God (4 of 5 case studies) King David's Son

Why was the Lord’s chastisement of David so seemingly harsh? Why did He choose to strike him in a way that would be more painful than if he himself had died? Why did the Lord pour out judgment on an innocent baby, who had neither done wrong nor right, yet was simply a victim of circumstance? Was this “an eye for an eye,” or was there an ulterior motive working in the heart of God? In the Lord’s mercy, He struck David’s firstborn of Bathsheba with sickness to kill him. The Lord makes this clear enough to David through His actions for him to repent and turn in unapologetic repentance once the issue is addressed.

The Lord begins His rebuke of David with this statement, saying, “It is I who anointed you king over Israel…” David was mandated to lead the people of Israel into righteousness and love in a corporate agreement with the heart of God. According to the word spoken through Nathan, David had committed a multidimensional sin: (1) he did not trust the Lord’s leadership, and stretched out his hand to satisfy his appetites instead of leaning into the Lord, (2) he lashed out in rebellion against the word of the Lord and the very identity of God, (3) he released a spirit of murder upon his house, the line chosen to carry the seed of promise, (4) and he gave opportunity to those who had accusations toward the Lord to lay blame on His ways. Because he was the king chosen by the Lord to rule over His people, all of these sins would have long-lasting repercussions that affected the entire nation. David was the appointed shepherd over these people, and he was beginning to lead them into a wrong avenue. The issue of David’s sin did not only affect his own personal life with the Lord, but it affected the entire nation he had been given authority by the Lord to govern.

The sin of David was terribly grievous, but why would the Lord pour out His vengeance upon an innocent baby? As God would not allow David to establish his kingdom upon bloodshed, the way He would insure this was by shaking him to the core with a full-on encounter the brutality of the death of the innocent. The Lord wanted David to understand how He feels about bloodshed in order that the root of violence in him would be cut off. The Lord had to show him what kind of an impact his sin had on those under him. David understood the Lord’s heart to show mercy, and this is why he fasted so ardently to turn the tide, and worshiped the Lord after the baby died. This judgment was a pre-emptive strike against the spirit of murder running rampant through the land because of the leadership of David. It was the least severe means God could have used in order to produce the kind of response He was requiring from David. How could this be?

David was directly scorning the Lord in his heart posture, not simply in the moment of passion. He was a man who was in the presence of the Lord continually, yet he was yielding to a wrong spirit, and because of the revelation placed on him, his heart was becoming more and more calloused. The sin was not addressed for at least nine months, and when it was addressed, Nathan was calling David to finish camping out in that spirit. He had not only given himself to licentiousness and lust, but in that, he was coming to a stance before the Lord that worshiped Him outwardly while inwardly agreeing with hatred of His ways.

David was essentially moving toward the attitude that might say, “Your Word is too heavy of a burden to walk out fully, and in my youthful zeal, I was able to walk in your ways, but it is simply impossible now. All the responsibility and expectation placed on me in this life would overwhelm me if I were also expected to operate in that kind blamelessness at the same time. Your grace is not sufficient for me in my weakness to walk out what You desire of me. Therefore, either You do not require full obedience of me, or Your leadership is not perfect.” David was acting presumptuously toward the Lord’s mercy, leaning on grace in an unrighteous manner. He was using it as an excuse for his sin instead of an empowering force to walk in His Law. If the Lord had not stepped in, David would have ended up with leading the nation into such gross inward searing of their conscience, and no one can even imagine the effects of such a notable demarcation in the people’s history.

Wrath of God vs. Love of God (3 of 5 case studies) The Siege of Jerusalem

The siege of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. was one of the most tragic events in the history of Israel. The Babylonians came in like a flood upon the Israelites, tearing down their strongholds and breaking through their fortifications with ferocity unheard of to that point. They ransacked all the towns and cities, consuming their resources until nothing was left for them to live. Eventually, it became such a desperate situation that they actually ate their own children and were unwilling even to share the flesh of their children with their closest companions and family members. They were then taken away to Babylon, and the Lord ripped their inheritance of the land out of their hands, giving it to another. It was told to them by Moses, concerning the Lord’s heart in this matter, “as the Lord delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you…”

How could this be? If the Lord hates violence and delights in mercy, how is this reconcilable to His actions toward His chosen people? Moses’ revelation of the Lord’s heart is not a conflicting one, but rather, it gives insight into why He allowed and instigated such horrifying events. The intention that moved God to bring about Israel’s destruction was from the very same fountainhead of love that caused Him to bless and prosper them. He gave them sure forewarning of what would come about if they did not walk in His ways, leaning on Him for strength and grace, yet they refused to take heed. They took the words of Moses lightly, turning to the Lord outwardly, while festering in unbelief and hatred on the inside.

This judgment upon Israel was not one that He quickly resorted to in a fit of rage. On the contrary, the Lord did all He could to turn the hearts of the people toward Him without such means. In the revival of Josiah, He gave them back the Law, which Josiah began to spread throughout the land immediately. God tested the response of their hearts to His Word, seeing that they refused to return to Him in truth, while externally professing to love and honor Him. Their devotion was not to Him but to themselves, and they saw the Lord and His Law as a way to manipulate for personal gain.

It was at this point that the Lord began to send messengers to call Israel out of their apostasy. Although they had inwardly chosen their own way, He began to bombard them with the call to return to Him straightaway. He openly shared His emotions toward them at this time, saying, “…I have given the beloved of My soul into the hand of her enemies. My inheritance has become to Me like a lion in the forest; She has roared against Me; Therefore I have come to hate her.” (Jer. 12:7-8). The people chosen to be the inheritance of God had risen against them in their hearts, believing that their own strength and ways were wiser than His.

They had become comparable to the times of the Judges in their rebellion, yet they strove to appear as though they were devoted to His leadership. Thus, their consciences were seared far worse than the people of that time, and it would take a far greater measure of judgment to turn their hearts back to Him. After the time of grace given for them to turn, especially in the preaching of Jeremiah, the Lord could see that the only way to restore their affections to Him was by utterly shattering their strength. They had become so infatuated with their own ability, tradition, and pride, they forgot the One who bestowed it all on them and crowned them as the chosen to begin with.

God’s heart still went out to His people in mercy after He had initiated the judgment that would turn their hearts back to Him. He gave adequate time for the people to prepare their hearts in the wake of the coming storm, and sent numerous prophets to call them to turn before the coming desolation. Those who were truly repentant still had to go through the trouble, but their hearts would stand without offense through the hardest of trials: seventy years of exile. This was not mainly a trial of their physical circumstances, but rather a testing of their hearts to see whether they would lean in to the hope of the Covenant and trust God, though their own strength was shattered.

The Lord’s strategy is always to draw His people with cords that will ultimately show His lovingkindness to the greatest measure possible. This was the Lord’s purpose behind the siege of Jerusalem, as it exposed the level of depravity that lied just under the surface in His people. By breaking their strength, He caused them to lean in to His, trusting His grace rather than their ability. In this way, those who would eventually return to Jerusalem would ideally be madly in love with their God out of gratitude for His mercy and restoration.

Wrath of God vs. Love of God (2 of 5 case studies) Uzzah & the Ark

The Ark of the Covenant was the vessel chosen by the Lord to cradle His manifest presence among His people before the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit was given to them. It was not simply a structure meant to have prophetic implications, but the Lord actually rested on it in the fullest measure possible in this age. In this way, it was a very dangerous vessel, surrounded by mystique because of the strange (at times horrific) activity that seemed to follow it. This activity caused entire cities to have sickness, various maladies, and even wide-spread death. The cause behind this was not a temperamental God who lost His cool when crossed, but rather, it was the picture of trying to plug a 120V conductor into a 1,000,000,000V socket. God, in His extreme holiness, was not restraining Himself in that context, and those who presumptuously came too close were simply swept away because their frames were not made to handle that kind of power.

Correspondingly, the Lord instituted an order of operation called the Law because He ardently desired His creation to be with Him in confidence, even in their frailty. The Law was the Lord’s gift to the Israelites to give them a context of how to safely approach Him. He also did this in the case of the Ark, giving His people a way to have access to the “full” measure of God’s manifest presence. It was extremely important for them to understand the weight of this privilege in order that they would not cross the boundaries set up for their safety and encounter the all consuming Fire without any protection.

Thus, we come to David’s procession from the house of Abinadab up to Jerusalem. David, in a free-spirited joy and excitement, set the Ark on a new cart in order to transport it quickly and allow the whole congregation to worship with dancing, singing, and a general hoopla. However, there were very specific instructions from the Lord on how to go about the transport of the Ark in a safe manner, as He says, “…after that the sons of Kohath shall come to carry them, so that they will not touch the holy objects and die.” (Num. 4:15). Moses also expressly writes, “…four carts and eight oxen he gave to the sons of Merari, according to their service… But he did not give any to the sons of Kohath because theirs was the service of the holy objects, which they carried on the shoulder.” (Num. 7:9). David led his people into treacherous waters, and would soon see the reasons why the Lord had given such straightforward orders.

When the cart came to a rougher terrain, turbulence of the drive soon caused the Ark to jerk and begin tipping over. In frantic reaction, Uzzah did what any God-honoring Levite might do: he reached out to catch the most holy of their sacred objects in order that it would not take a fatal spill. Immediately, the fire of God consumed him. The congregation’s jubilation quickly ceased, and David became angry and afraid toward the Lord (how much more the general population), leaving the Ark in another place.

Why such an outburst from the Lord? In hindsight, it is clear that this was not a random flare of anger, but an incidence that was openly forewarned. The Lord was actually exercising great mercy in their midst, since He only struck down one man and not the entire company. David got the message, though it took three months for him to reconcile the occasion with what he knew about the Lord, His kindness and unwavering mercy. Upon looking back at the Lord’s actions, he realized that it was not His offense that caused Uzzah’s death, but rather his own. When he came to finish the procession to Jerusalem, he made doubly sure that all precautions were taken and the divine order was followed.

Therefore, the death of Uzzah was caused by David’s, the people’s, and his own irreverence. Because they did not take the Lord’s warning seriously, the natural consequences of their actions happened just as He said they would. In a sense, Uzzah was a victim of circumstance, but if any of them had spoken out and called them to correct the boundary, he would not have been in the situation that caused him to die. Though it was His heart’s desire dwell unhindered amidst His people, He also understood their inability to handle such unrestrained power. Yet, by following a strict outline of boundaries, the Lord somehow created the context to be with such broken people. In mercy, the Lord called His people to tremble at His word, letting them know that He never exaggerates or overemphasizes, but speaks with clarity to be heard and obeyed. In Uzzah’s case, the message came loud and clear.